On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:33 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
*> The question is about the first person experience,* > I don't want to know what the question is about, I want to know precisely what the question is. And even after all this time you are unable to unambiguously state the question, so it's not surprising I am unable to answer it. > > *> why do you keep saying that a computation is real only when implemented > in a primary physical reality?* > So you're asking why are things real only when they are real. I don't think that needs an answer. > God is defined by > God is real unless defined an integer. > *From Plato came neoplatonism. From this came mathematics and physics.* > You always ignore Archimedes, the greatest ancient Greek of them all. If anyone is the father (or maybe grandfather) of modern physics and mathematics it's him. Unlike Plato or Aristotle he discovered things that are just as true today as they were on the day he discovered them. > *> God is defined by ...* > ... a grey amorphous blob. With that nifty definition one can state with confidence that God exists because grey amorphous blobs certainly do. > *> 2+2 = 5 is grammatically correct in arithmetic,* > 2+2=5 can not be formed by lawfully manipulating Peano's axioms, if it could be then arithmetic would be a silly useless enterprise. > ? > ! > >> with no clear referent that a personal pronoun with no clear referent >> is supposed to answer. > > > *> The referent is the first person experience possible.* > Which "the" first person experience is being refers to, the one in Moscow or the one in Washington? If it's both then stop saying "the". If it's neither then you're using a personal pronoun with no referent and the word means precisely nothing. > *> I will be duplicated, but I know with certainty that I will taste some > coffee, but I am not sure, nor can I be sure if it will taste like Russian > coffee or American coffee.* > That's 5, count them 5, uses of the personal pronoun "I" in the short sentence above describing an exparament to be performed in a world that contains personal pronoun duplicating machines. And Bruno is baffled that John Clark believes Bruno is talking gibberish, Weird. > *> You keep denying the first person report of the copies, * > I keep insisting there is no such thing as *THE* first person if there is a copy of it in Moscow and a copy of it in Washington. > *> that is the reason of the FPI.* > You've forgotten IHA. > >>In a world with people duplicating machines there is no such thing as >> *THE* first person experience; > > > *> Proof?* > "The" is singular and "copy" implies 2 and 2 is greater than 1. QED. I await the Field Medal with eager anticipation. > *Just read both diaries.* > Oh no, not those goddamn idiot diaries again!!! > > *You are the only one who have a problem with this,* > You say that a LOT and If it was really true I'd have to conclude that I'm far smarter than I thought I was, but I don't believe for one nanosecond that it is true. >> if you really meant what you said about the Helsinki Man being anyone >> who remembers being the Helsinki Man yesterday, but of course you didn't >> really mean it and will now start equivocating. > > > > *I will just distinguish the first person 1 from* [...] > Just as I predicted you now start equivocation and that sort of mental mush and evasion is exactly precisely what I thought would happen. So please stop saying that we agree on the definition of the Helsinki man because we most certainly do *NOT*. I have a clear consistent definition and all you have is gibberish > >> Everybody correctly predicted that the Moscow Man will see Moscow and >> the Washington man will see Washington and everybody correctly predicted >> that both will have a first person experience tomorrow, > > > *>Indeed, and in particular that first person experience is, for both > copies, I see one city and not the other, * > If so then where is this grand indeterminacy that you keep talking about? Exactly what was NOT correctly predicted yesterday in Helsinki? I now await an avalanche of personal pronouns in answer to my question not one of which will have a clear unambiguous referent. > > *and I could not have written, in Helsinki, which one. * > Which *ONE*?? Forget yesterday even today you can't say which one ended up seeing which city because the question makes no sense. Yesterday in Helsinki there was only one so it's ridiculous to expect to be able to point to 2 people and say you will see Moscow but you won't, but anybody can correctly predict that the Moscow Man will see Moscow only and the Washington man will see Washington only and both will have a first person experience tomorrow, And if today "The Helsinki Man" means anybody who remembers being The Helsinki man yesterday (and I can't think what else it could mean) then The Helsinki Man will see 2 cities, provided that 1 +1 =2. > *That is the FPI*. > Once again you've forgotten IHA. >> and nobody in Helsinki will. > > > > *Then the Helsinki guy has been killed in the process, * > Yep, he's dead as a doornail, well he is if "The Helsinki Man" means the man who was in Helsinki yesterday because yesterday does not exist today. Of course only a fool would define "The Helsinki Man" that way. >> Yes each individual only saw one city but each individual is only half >> of the Helsinki man because *THE HELSINKI MAN HAS BEEN DUPLICATED* and >> that is what the word "duplicated" means. > > > *> No body has been cut in half. A duplication is not a division* > Of course not, a dead half a body is not even a mediocre copy of a whole living body. > *>>You forget that the question is about the first person experiences,* > I haven't forgotten, I just want to you to make clear which "the" first person experiences you're talking about, but I'll never know because (and I don't say this as a insult I mean it quite literally) you don't know what you're talking about when you use a personal pronoun with no clear referent. > > *AS SEEN BY THE FIRST PERSON,* > Ah .., I believe all all first person experiences are from the first person, that's why it's not the third person. > > *WHICH IS GIVEN IN THE PROTOCOL OF THE EXPERIENCE.* > Using a scientific sounding word like "protocol" can not turn a silly chaotic mess into a real experiment or even a thought experiment. > If you think that there is no first person indeterminacy, just gives the > algorithm. > Before I can do that you have to tell me exactly what you want the algorithm to do. I lost track of how many times I've asked you that but all I get is more personal pronouns with no unique meaning in a world with personal pronoun duplicating machines. Every meaningful prediction has already been correctly made yesterday in Helsinki and there is nothing more to predict. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
